Article type
Abstract
Background: Smoking may cause different health hazards. At present, there are many systematic reviews exploring the relationship between smoking and health outcomes.
Objective: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of smoking and health outcomes systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using evidence mapping approach.
Methods: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning smoking and health outcomes was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and VIP from inception until May 2022. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The bubble map comprehensively presents information such as the quality of evidence, study topic, population, and number of original studies included.
Results: A total of 92 reviews were included, which were published between 2000 and 2022, from 20 countries, with China contributing the most reviews (32, 34.78%). The design of the original study included cohort (n=1380), case-control (n=882) and cross-section (384). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, four (4.35%) were of moderate quality 27 (29.35%) were of moderate quality, 26 (28.26%) were of low quality, and 35 (38.04%) were of critically low quality.
In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 26.5 (25-28.5).
Regarding the topics of the reviews, 57 (61.96%) focused on treatment, 22 (23.91%) focused on prognosis, and 10 (10.87%) focused on prevention, and 3 (3.26%) focused on etiology. These studies have focused on cancer patients (33, 35.87 %), diabetic patients (13,14.13%), patients undergoing surgery (7,7.61%), cardiovascular disease (6, 6.52%), inflammatory patients (5, 5.43%), and pregnancy (6, 6.52%), and children (5, 5.43%), in special populations.
Conclusions: The existing systematic evaluation evidence mainly focuses on the health impact of smoking on cancer, diabetes, women, children, and other vulnerable groups. The methodological quality of the evidence needs further improvement.
Objective: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of smoking and health outcomes systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using evidence mapping approach.
Methods: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning smoking and health outcomes was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and VIP from inception until May 2022. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The bubble map comprehensively presents information such as the quality of evidence, study topic, population, and number of original studies included.
Results: A total of 92 reviews were included, which were published between 2000 and 2022, from 20 countries, with China contributing the most reviews (32, 34.78%). The design of the original study included cohort (n=1380), case-control (n=882) and cross-section (384). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, four (4.35%) were of moderate quality 27 (29.35%) were of moderate quality, 26 (28.26%) were of low quality, and 35 (38.04%) were of critically low quality.
In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 26.5 (25-28.5).
Regarding the topics of the reviews, 57 (61.96%) focused on treatment, 22 (23.91%) focused on prognosis, and 10 (10.87%) focused on prevention, and 3 (3.26%) focused on etiology. These studies have focused on cancer patients (33, 35.87 %), diabetic patients (13,14.13%), patients undergoing surgery (7,7.61%), cardiovascular disease (6, 6.52%), inflammatory patients (5, 5.43%), and pregnancy (6, 6.52%), and children (5, 5.43%), in special populations.
Conclusions: The existing systematic evaluation evidence mainly focuses on the health impact of smoking on cancer, diabetes, women, children, and other vulnerable groups. The methodological quality of the evidence needs further improvement.